Norwegian DeCSS kid acquitted

griffinn · 8th January 2003, 05:53

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...ticleID=466519

Quote:

A Norwegian teenager who helped crack a code meant to protect the content of DVDs won full backing from an Oslo court on Tuesday. The court acquitted him on all charges, a ruling that comes as a crushing blow to public prosecutors and entertainment giants.

The case had been widely described as a "David vs Goliath" battle, pitting 16-year-old Jon Lech Johansen from a small town south of Oslo against huge corporations and organizations including the Motion Picture Association of America.

"David" clearly won.

Wonder what MPAA's next move will be?

fwgx · 8th January 2003, 11:15

A good day for the freedom of knowlege

binary hero · 9th January 2003, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Phily Baby
A good day for the freedom of knowlege

.

Twilightseer · 9th January 2003, 11:47

Awesome

devils night · 15th January 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by griffinn
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...ticleID=466519Wonder what MPAA's next move will be?

worst thing they could ever do. not the so call no life hackers suck as yourselves will be back to doing this crap again. the only reason your on this guys case is that he wrote a program where you can rip the movies off the DVD's in the first place. you people make me sick wanting everything for free.

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 08:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Phily Baby
A good day for the freedom of knowlege

Freedom of knowledge is it? What about just stating as it is, you want just plain free movies. The fact that they cost millions to produce matters little, because the producer is corrupt and evil because he has people working for him that don't live in mansions.

Even worse than a file sharing political activist are the anarchic "All data should be free" sort that parade around as being humanitarians who wish that every single bit of thing that can be turned into a computer file should be publicly accesible for no charge. It demonstrates a complete ignorance of real, needed socio-economical models of work and generation of wealth/capital.

Twilightseer · 15th January 2003, 08:29

Alex,

When I buy a CD or a DVD, I want to have full control over it; I don't want it to be crippled or anything like this. Let's suppose I buy a DVD, I want to play the movie in my bedroom, I have no DVD player there but I have a VCR : why should I be prevented from making a copy of the DVD on a video tape ? There's no valid reason for that, yet you have the Macrovision protection that does just that. Why should be have to tolerate that ?
The same goes for protected audio cds : why should I be prevented from making mp3s of a CD I paid for ? In addition, copy protection schemes lower the audio quality.

I don't care if people abuse the system; I don't want anyone to alter my right to a legitimate private copy.

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 08:44

By buying media, the consumer has entered into an agreement with the producer to use the media as the producer allows them to. As the original media- the master tape or film reel belongs truly to the producer and not the consumer, as well as the copyright, the producer has full authority to decide what terms consumers can use their copyrighted material. If the user does not like the terms, than the user should buy a different media article or not buy it. This is how the free market works.

Twilightseer · 15th January 2003, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Xerxes
By buying media, the consumer has entered into an agreement with the producer to use the media as the producer allows them to. As the original media- the master tape or film reel belongs truly to the producer and not the consumer, as well as the copyright, the producer has full authority to decide what terms consumers can use their copyrighted material. If the user does not like the terms, than the user should buy a different media article or not buy it. This is how the free market works.

This means that lending a cd to a friend or making mp3s of your own cds is illegal. Do you support that ?

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 08:53

I support the rights of content producers to control their content and their copyright.

If content producers want to maximize profit, they will seek to make their media articles as accesible and usable as possible, while at the same time striking a balance with the other demand, making the article as little as liability as possible to the security of the copyright.

fwgx · 15th January 2003, 09:00

My arguement is not with the copying of DVD but of the regional encoding of them. There isn't a problem with VHS tapes not being encoded to a certain region, so why then DVD's? I should be able to buy and use a DVD from anywhere in the world and have it work on my machine. Instead I can't because some people want to control access to their films. Why I ask you? Essentially they're saying, "sorry we don't want your money right now, we'll have it in 6 months when we decide to release it where you are". All it does is limit the export of the media, not good business I'd say. It also pisses off the consumer, it does nothing to stop ripping.

Freedom of knowledge is important, I'm not saying anything that can be digitally encoded should be free, what I'm saying is that knowledge is not harmful. I could write a textbook on nuclear weapons which is just knowledge, thoughts and ideas which is not harmful in the slightest. Pay for the book, pay the author and the publisher and all the rest for it but don't pay for the knowledge. Would you like the human genome to belong to Mr Hussein?

Twilightseer · 15th January 2003, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Xerxes
I support the rights of content producers to control their content and their copyright.

If content producers want to maximize profit, they will seek to make their media articles as accesible and usable as possible, while at the same time striking a balance with the other demand, making the article as little as liability as possible to the security of the copyright.

That didn't quite address my question

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Twilightseer
This means that lending a cd to a friend or making mp3s of your own cds is illegal. Do you support that ?

Fine then. If I bought a CD that said explicitly so, I would honor the agreement. But then I probably wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place, and I don't think the market will buy it either, in its current form.

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Essentially they're saying, "sorry we don't want your money right now, we'll have it in 6 months when we decide to release it where you are". All it does is limit the export of the media, not good business I'd say.

Pay for the book, pay the author and the publisher and all the rest for it but don't pay for the knowledge.

#1 It is not the consumers decision to make decisions for producers in that manner. If consumers really cared, they would abstain from purchasing. The fact that DVD's of all regions continue to be purchased quite regularly and that the producer has not altered business plans means that the producer considers that they are conducting "good business".

#2 Paying for the author and publisher, the neccesary price of accessing knowledge, must be maintained for the increasingly knowledge based economy to continue to generate wealth.

fwgx · 15th January 2003, 11:31

Yes but the point is your paying for costs, wages, materials etc you aren't paying for the knowledge itself. Knowledge is not the book but the intangiable thoughts that the book expresses. You shouldn't pay for the knowledge, that's the whole point about an open free scientific community, where knowledge is free to all. What this kid did was merely aquire knowledge to circumvent a system, which should be kept in the public domain as it is only knowledge which is itself harmless to everybody.

A knowledge based ecconomy generates wealth not by the selling of knowledge, but by applying such knowledge to something useful that people will use and want to buy.

edit: If they really cared they could also crack the code that pins particular DVD's to a region.

Xerxes · 15th January 2003, 11:39

The knowledge although an abstract concept IS still a "good". This is what companies refer to as "Intangible Assets".

The publishing and sharing of scientific papers and theorems is *completely* different than the trashing of copyrighted Music and Film going on now. The apparatus to freely/cheaply publish and distribute scientific papers has existed for more than a century, and it is an important way Western Civilization has advanced. Free sharing of Music and Film, and the breaking of copytights expressly created for the profit of a party of individuals, can be construed in no other way than criminal.

The act of breaking this code protection thing and then dissemenating the information on how to break it is as criminal as breaking into a bank, discovering the time vault combination, not stealing money and then publishing the combination in a newspaper.

fwgx · 15th January 2003, 11:46

I'd say it's more like saying how to break into a bank without actually doing it.

griffinn · 21st January 2003, 00:58

Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks

zootm · 21st January 2003, 06:59

to be fair, the guy did make the decoder so that he could watch the DVD through linux. and the media was licensed for viewing on a home computer. so good on him.

15th January 2003, 09:00	#11
fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,315	My arguement is not with the copying of DVD but of the regional encoding of them. There isn't a problem with VHS tapes not being encoded to a certain region, so why then DVD's? I should be able to buy and use a DVD from anywhere in the world and have it work on my machine. Instead I can't because some people want to control access to their films. Why I ask you? Essentially they're saying, "sorry we don't want your money right now, we'll have it in 6 months when we decide to release it where you are". All it does is limit the export of the media, not good business I'd say. It also pisses off the consumer, it does nothing to stop ripping. Freedom of knowledge is important, I'm not saying anything that can be digitally encoded should be free, what I'm saying is that knowledge is not harmful. I could write a textbook on nuclear weapons which is just knowledge, thoughts and ideas which is not harmful in the slightest. Pay for the book, pay the author and the publisher and all the rest for it but don't pay for the knowledge. Would you like the human genome to belong to Mr Hussein? .: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

15th January 2003, 11:31	#15
fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,315	Yes but the point is your paying for costs, wages, materials etc you aren't paying for the knowledge itself. Knowledge is not the book but the intangiable thoughts that the book expresses. You shouldn't pay for the knowledge, that's the whole point about an open free scientific community, where knowledge is free to all. What this kid did was merely aquire knowledge to circumvent a system, which should be kept in the public domain as it is only knowledge which is itself harmless to everybody. A knowledge based ecconomy generates wealth not by the selling of knowledge, but by applying such knowledge to something useful that people will use and want to buy. edit: If they really cared they could also crack the code that pins particular DVD's to a region. .: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

15th January 2003, 11:46	#17
fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,315	I'd say it's more like saying how to break into a bank without actually doing it. .: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

21st January 2003, 00:58	#18
griffinn Court Jester (Forum King) Join Date: May 2000 Location: Your local toystore Posts: 3,502	The master of vaguely relevant links strikes again! Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks The smiley slot machine! \| Quotable Blog

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th January 2003, 11:15	#2
fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King) Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,315	A good day for the freedom of knowlege .: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

9th January 2003, 11:47	#4
Twilightseer Le Poison dans la Bouteille [Moderator] Join Date: May 2000 Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3ï¿½ porte ï¿½ droite Posts: 6,296	Awesome

15th January 2003, 08:29	#7
Twilightseer Le Poison dans la Bouteille [Moderator] Join Date: May 2000 Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3ï¿½ porte ï¿½ droite Posts: 6,296	Alex, When I buy a CD or a DVD, I want to have full control over it; I don't want it to be crippled or anything like this. Let's suppose I buy a DVD, I want to play the movie in my bedroom, I have no DVD player there but I have a VCR : why should I be prevented from making a copy of the DVD on a video tape ? There's no valid reason for that, yet you have the Macrovision protection that does just that. Why should be have to tolerate that ? The same goes for protected audio cds : why should I be prevented from making mp3s of a CD I paid for ? In addition, copy protection schemes lower the audio quality. I don't care if people abuse the system; I don't want anyone to alter my right to a legitimate private copy.

15th January 2003, 08:44	#8
Xerxes Capitalist Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place Posts: 8,687	By buying media, the consumer has entered into an agreement with the producer to use the media as the producer allows them to. As the original media- the master tape or film reel belongs truly to the producer and not the consumer, as well as the copyright, the producer has full authority to decide what terms consumers can use their copyrighted material. If the user does not like the terms, than the user should buy a different media article or not buy it. This is how the free market works.

15th January 2003, 08:53	#10
Xerxes Capitalist Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place Posts: 8,687	I support the rights of content producers to control their content and their copyright. If content producers want to maximize profit, they will seek to make their media articles as accesible and usable as possible, while at the same time striking a balance with the other demand, making the article as little as liability as possible to the security of the copyright.

15th January 2003, 11:39	#16
Xerxes Capitalist Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place Posts: 8,687	The knowledge although an abstract concept IS still a "good". This is what companies refer to as "Intangible Assets". The publishing and sharing of scientific papers and theorems is completely different than the trashing of copyrighted Music and Film going on now. The apparatus to freely/cheaply publish and distribute scientific papers has existed for more than a century, and it is an important way Western Civilization has advanced. Free sharing of Music and Film, and the breaking of copytights expressly created for the profit of a party of individuals, can be construed in no other way than criminal. The act of breaking this code protection thing and then dissemenating the information on how to break it is as criminal as breaking into a bank, discovering the time vault combination, not stealing money and then publishing the combination in a newspaper.

21st January 2003, 06:59	#19
zootm Forum King Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,378	to be fair, the guy did make the decoder so that he could watch the DVD through linux. and the media was licensed for viewing on a home computer. so good on him.